Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Next President of the U.S.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SlowDownThere
    replied
    Newt's running....

    Did you see him on the leprachaun's show last night. He all but confirmed it.

    He's running!

    Leave a comment:


  • deanpa
    replied
    Originally posted by Bluntforcetraum
    Nobody should give Hillary power.Period. It's not that she is a woman. Their are other female canidates that I would consiter before her. Condoleezza Rice is worth her weight in gold. She actually knows what she is talking about. Rudolph Guiliani is another powerful canadiate. His actions during the 9-11 tragedy highlighted the fact that he can make levelheaded decisions under pressure.

    Their is no way in he!! I will vote for Hillary.
    So, what are you saying about Rudy? J/k. McCain has a good chance, as he can get votes from both sides. That very well could keep Hillary from taking office, which I think could turn out disastrous. It would be funny to hear all of the jokes of Bill being the "first gentleman" though.

    Here's one who hasn't been mentioned. Neal Boortz. Radio talk show host. He would be a very good third-party candidate, but would never get elected. He makes a lot of sense though.

    Leave a comment:


  • realluke
    replied
    I vote for Styx

    Leave a comment:


  • Bluntforcetraum
    replied
    Nobody should give Hillary power.Period. It's not that she is a woman. Their are other female canidates that I would consiter before her. Condoleezza Rice is worth her weight in gold. She actually knows what she is talking about. Rudolph Guiliani is another powerful canadiate. His actions during the 9-11 tragedy highlighted the fact that he can make levelheaded decisions under pressure.

    Their is no way in he!! I will vote for Hillary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delta784
    replied
    Originally posted by richjorg
    I am glad that you brought this up. Here is my "conspiracy theory": The left wing radical liberals in Hollywood have ceated this series depicting a strong female president with one goal in mind - to soften americans to the idea of a female president. This show has begun airing a couple of years before Hillary will run for president. By the time we vote, many of the dimwitted americans that have grown to like the fictional charcter in the tv show will believe that having a female president would be a good thing. More votes for Hillary.
    That's not only plausible, it's probable.

    Leave a comment:


  • richjorg
    replied
    Originally posted by hellhound130
    How about Geena Davis character in Commander and Chief??? Ill take that president anyday
    I am glad that you brought this up. Here is my "conspiracy theory": The left wing radical liberals in Hollywood have ceated this series depicting a strong female president with one goal in mind - to soften americans to the idea of a female president. This show has begun airing a couple of years before Hillary will run for president. By the time we vote, many of the dimwitted americans that have grown to like the fictional charcter in the tv show will believe that having a female president would be a good thing. More votes for Hillary.

    I am not saying that having a female president would be bad, but the timing of this is interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • hellhound130
    replied
    How about Geena Davis character in Commander and Chief??? Ill take that president anyday

    Leave a comment:


  • Josey Wales
    replied
    Ismalibu,

    Let's contrast what you wrote here...

    Wow, JW, you sure are fond of reading between the lines, even if there are no lines to begin with.
    with another of your contributions...

    But since Clinton is a big, bad felon and Newt is just a scumbag piece of crap, I guess it's a lot easier for you to stand by your man.
    Do you detect irony here....?

    Let's continue:

    However, I don't attempt to excuse Clinton, I only mentioned him to provide a frame of reference as to the time when Newt was shtupping his Aide.
    Your "frame of reference" is a connoation of analogy. The mere fact that you did use Newt in relation to Clinton is to attempt to draw a similarity; under the conditions presented, it was patently illogical. But the bottom line is that you did use the arguning tactic of comparative ethics with the intent of comparing Newt with Clinton in terms of marital transgressions.

    Never, ever forget this, m'man: CLINTON DID NOT LIE TO CONCEAL AN AFFAIR WITH MONICA. THAT'S THE MEDIA LINE PROVIDED BY THE CLINTON PREVARICATORS!!! CLINTON LIED TO CONCEAL HIS M.O. AS A SERIAL SEXUAL PREDATOR!!! When Paula Jones's attorney was examining Clinton's M.O., very powerful evidence, he knew as an attorney what was happening. He had a choice between admitting his pattern of conduct or lying. He chose lying because he couldn't bring himself to admit to those he duped with regularity and impunity that they were supporting a sexual predator. Therefore, idiots like Boxer, Feinstein, even Hillary became that which they rail against: ENABLERS!!! Their actions enabled a felony sexual predator to remain in a position of power where he could continue to victimize other women!



    Adios,

    JW

    Leave a comment:


  • lsmalibu
    replied
    Originally posted by Josey Wales
    Ismalibu,

    Actually, m'man, the deductive logic used to decipher the intent of your post was extremely elementary. You employed a rather rudimentary arguing technique known as comparative ethics. The only reason to do so is to justify a party's immoral actions by pointing out -and in this case, incorrectly- that actions of another are equally immoral.

    But in the extremly slight chance I am wrong, why would you attempt to link Clinton's three felonies with Newt's marital indiscretions? And the very least, it is an extremely weak analogy.


    Stay safe,

    JW
    Wow, JW, you sure are fond of reading between the lines, even if there are no lines to begin with. A comparative ethics arguement would go something like this: "Well, Newt Gingrich cheated left 2 of his wives for mistresses, so what Clinton did wasn't that bad," and therefore attempting to excuse Clinton's actions. However, I don't attempt to excuse Clinton, I only mentioned him to provide a frame of reference as to the time when Newt was shtupping his Aide. If you want to get into comparative ethics, we can. Do I think lying about oral sex is as bad as leaving your cancer-stricken wife for a mistress? Not really. But since Clinton is a big, bad felon and Newt is just a scumbag piece of crap, I guess it's a lot easier for you to stand by your man.
    Last edited by lsmalibu; 10-11-2005, 02:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RedDog4
    replied
    my vote....

    duplicate......

    Leave a comment:


  • RedDog4
    replied
    my vote....

    I dont care anymore... No matter who gets voted in, they're not going to be able to please everyone, people will still bitch and complain about how ****ty the country in bein ran... I honestly dont care anymore. Gas prices will still suck, I still wont have S.S in 40 years, taxes will still be the same... The only thing that changes are the jokes and complaints everyone will make...
    Last edited by RedDog4; 10-11-2005, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josey Wales
    replied
    Ismalibu,

    Actually, m'man, the deductive logic used to decipher the intent of your post was extremely elementary. You employed a rather rudimentary arguing technique known as comparative ethics. The only reason to do so is to justify a party's immoral actions by pointing out -and in this case, incorrectly- that actions of another are equally immoral.

    But in the extremly slight chance I am wrong, why would you attempt to link Clinton's three felonies with Newt's marital indiscretions? And the very least, it is an extremely weak analogy.


    Stay safe,

    JW
    Last edited by Josey Wales; 10-11-2005, 12:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rayo
    replied
    I like Rudy Gulliani but he won't get the GOP nomination with his views on abortion. McCain might get it but he's pretty old and might be viewed as too moderate. How about former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot?

    Leave a comment:


  • lsmalibu
    replied
    Originally posted by Josey Wales
    Ismalibu,

    Are you trying to tell us that there is a legitimate analogy between Clinton's commtting three felonies in order to conceal his MO and Newt Gingrich's behavior?

    Please tell me what it is permissbale to commit perjury, suborn it, and obstruct justice, all felonies.


    Good luck,

    JW
    Josey,

    I know you took a "Reading Comprehension for Conservatives" class in college, so please point out where I ever excused Clinton's behavior.

    Leave a comment:


  • Josey Wales
    replied
    Ismalibu,

    Are you trying to tell us that there is a legitimate analogy between Clinton's commtting three felonies in order to conceal his MO and Newt Gingrich's behavior?

    Please tell me what it is permissbale to commit perjury, suborn it, and obstruct justice, all felonies.


    Good luck,

    JW

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3627 users online. 261 members and 3366 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X